www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Orthodox Eucharist and Byzantine Catholics

I posed this question to an Orthodox Priest here in Oklahoma:
His response was thus: He continued:
I thanked him for his welcome to us and his clarification. I explained that my understanding was that we share the same liturgical rites, and theology; but I belong to another communion not united with Holy Orthodoxy. To receive the Eucharist is not only a symbol of our unity with Christ but our unity to His Church. I could not excommunicate myself from my communion with the Bishop of Rome, of which I understand that communion to be what constitutes my understanding of Christ's Church.

Slava Isusu Christu!
Didymus

Thank you for your trouble in asking this Didymus.

Being perfectly honest I think most of us know and understand this - and reluctantly accept it.

One day we will be in Communion - till then sadly we Catholics cannot receive the Holy Mysteries from Orthodox Priests despite some of those who think we can.

I once attended a funeral in an Episcopal Church where the female Minister invited all Christians to partake in Communion. I am a Byzantine Catholic & I did receive communion that day along with my Russian Orthodox aunt & uncle.

Dear Angel,

I'm afraid your whole family did something wrong. Not only is it against the discipline of both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches to receive Holy Communion outside their respective Churches, but the Episcopal Church does not have a valid priesthood or Eucharist. I'm sorry, but I speak the truth in love here.

Fr David Straut

The problem is not with the EOC. The problem has its roots in the documents of Vatican II in which it is noted (if I remember correctly) a member of the RCC may take communion at an EOC church under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, the RCC did not consult the EOC on the matter.

John:

Unfortunately, as with so many things, the context has been lost and few remember the specifics of the times in which these statements were made.

The Fathers of Vatican II were mindful of the terrible times that both Orthodox and Eastern Christians had had under Communism and the experiences of those who had been cut off for long periods of time from their own Church. The permission for Catholics to commune Orthodox Christians was extended for those special circumstances of persecution. And Catholic Christians were given to understand that if they were in the reverse situation they should approach the Orthodox Church and, if necessary, make profession of faith or whatever else was required to maintain their Eucharistic life. The situation is that both of our Churches recognize that there is no such thing as a "rugged individualist" among Christians despite the idea among so many American Protestants.

This whole thing has been, as with so many other good things, misunderstood and misused to the point that it is a constant source of irritation rather than the special pastoral mercy it was meant to be. It should be noted that the situations envisioned were those of genuine persecution such as have been discussed so often here. Metropolitan Laurus of thrice blessed memory mentioned to one of our posters of his knowledge of such sharing in the gulag. That isn't someone dropping into another Church's parish on Sunday morning.

It should be noted that the Catholic bishops of the United States--all of them, both East and West have long ago stated that the situation in the United States does not provide the circumstances envisioned in this Vatican II permission. So it should already be a dead issue. But like the flu it keeps coming back year after year.

In Christ,

BOB

I've got one for you all. My Grandfather was Orthodox. My Grandmother is Byzantine Catholic. At my grandfather's funeral service, both priests from both churches concelibrated (sp) at the Orthodox Church. Everyone received communion who was either Orthodox or Catholic. It was perhaps the most beautiful service I have ever been to. It was breaking the rules, indeed, but I believe it was a great opportunity for ecumenism.

All I can add is AFAIK in the Middle East intercommunion among the Melkites and the Orthodox is normal; the only division is the clergy don't concelebrate. Other than that, the Orthodox priest in Oklahoma said what the rule is and it deserves respect.

As for the Episcopalians although one can go into more detail as Fr David starts to, 'we're not in communion so don't receive' suffices.

As Father David implied, there is a radical difference between the Catholic/Orthodox estrangement and the division between Anglicans and both Catholics and Orthodox.

How would one know that the relevant provision of Vatican II only concerns a situation of immediate persecution? The policy of Catholics welcoming Orthodox to the Eucharist is much older than that, and so is the policy of Orthodox welcoming Catholics to the Eucharist. Much more recently, when Metropolitan Nikodim served Divine Liturgy in Rome and communicated both Catholics and Orthodox, nobody in Rome was persecuting either community (to the contrary, Roman Catholic Masses were easily to be found quite near to the place where the Metropolitan was serving).

Also involving Metropolitan Nikodim: when His Eminence admitted Father Emile Briere of Madonna House to concelebrate the Divine Liturgy with him at the Church of the St Petersburg Spiritual Academy, there was a functioning Roman Catholic Church in the city where Father Briere could easily have said Mass.

It would be no trouble to give some more examples.

Fr. Serge

HORATIO
Is it a custom?
HAMLET
Ay, marry, is't:
But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honour'd in the breach than the observance.

Catholics and Orthodox are not in full communion with each other. Therefore, as a general rule, we don't receive communion in each other's churches. Nevertheless, while we are not in full communion, we are in some sort of flawed or imperfect communion, because we hold the same faith and have the same sacraments, including the Eucharist and the priesthood. Therefore, the general rule can (and, sometimes, by mutual agreement, should) be broken in specific circumstances.

While this may seem messy to those who like clear, unbendable rules, I think it's the best we can do at the moment, and it corresponds to the actual situation of imperfect communion between us. Rules are important, but, sometimes, as Shakespeare knew, it is more honourable to break a rule than to follow it.

I think ultimately the message here, is that if you disagree with a teaching of the church, you're justified in ignoring it. This is one of those times I'm thankful for the existence of Orthodox hardliners.

Note the similarity to Christians in the Middle East, whom another pointed out often intercommune: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Eastern Rite. The Antiochian Patriarchate is, in fact, officially in communion with one of the two non-Chalcedonian Antiochian churches (sorry -- I can never remember which one). When you're in danger of having your head sawn off with a dull sword if you are too "up front" about being a Christian, you tend to gather and worship together. You'll find few Orthodox, even hardliners, who criticize Middle Eastern Christians much about this.